To my fellow Protestants and Orthodox who are formerly Protestant (and even cradle Orthodox, for you've had to make this faith your own), what drew you to Orthodoxy?

I ask because it seems that Orthodoxy is gaining massive ground among Protestants and even in the secular world. For instance, 60 Minutes had a very positive interview with His All Holiness, Bartholomew (or as he told the reporter, "Just Bartholomew"). They then did an exceptional piece about Mt. Athos, portraying the Orthodox in an extremely positive light.

In my own subjective experiences, I've found that Orthodoxy appeals to the more liberal or "postmodern" Protestants because it's not tied to any of their childhood memories of church (which tend to be negative). I've seen a few actually become theologically conservative after converting to Orthodoxy, whereas before they had gone so far as to question the Deity of Christ.

In my own life, I had four friends become seriously interested in Orthodoxy. These typical Texas Southern Baptist boys actually preferred the Eastern Rite Antiochean services to the Western Rite. So something appealed to them.

For myself, I am still a Protestant in name, but feel my heart (and head) drawn towards Orthodoxy. I find my theology consistently changing and becoming more and more Orthodox.

What is so interesting is that 5 years ago, if someone asked me about the Orthodox Church, I'd have no idea what to say. I knew nothing of it.

My whole point is what is it about Orthodoxy that has drawn people to it, specifically to the Protestants and Protestant converts on this board?

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

After being Protestant (Wesleyan holiness) a while I realised that I didn't believe in a lot of stuff that most Protestants believe in. At that point I wasn't sure which direction to go in, and so was sort of in limbo (in other words, I didn't go straight from Protestantism to Orthodoxy). Eventually I became convinced that Christ founded Church (with doctrines, hierarchy, etc.), and after a bit of searching I decided that that Church was the Orthodox Church. The 10 years since then have been a constant struggle with that decision.

For myself, I am still a Protestant in name, but feel my heart (and head) drawn towards Orthodoxy. I find my theology consistently changing and becoming more and more Orthodox.

More interesting, why not make the jump?

For personal reasons and questions I still have. I'll leave it at that.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

The denomination I've been a part of for a while (Southern Baptist) is huge on church growth. What I've seen, however, is that much of the church growth has come from people who were already Christians. Now, part of this is due to the fact that somewhere around 80% of Americans claim the Christian faith, but the people who were moving to Southern Baptist churches were people who were active in other churches. In my own personal experience with the Orthodox Church, however, I'm seeing people who claimed no faith become converts, people who were nominally Christian become converts, and people who were active in a church become converts.

Would you say that whereas it seems the door for Protestants is quickly closing in this nation, that the Orthodox can still grab the attention of the "unchurched" and inactive Christians? That is to say, since there is so much hostility towards the Protestant church (as well as confusion within the Protestant church), could it be that the Orthodox can still reach out to these people and not face the same hostility?

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

I wanted worship that wasn't self-centered bad elevator music or (worse) a cheerleading event. My frustration with worship was coupled with a Bible study on the Book of Revelation (which included forays into Daniel and Ezekiel)... it made me think - "hey, why isn't our worship like it is pictured in Heaven?!? What happened?"

Mind you, I was pretty involved in worship for 10-15 years but in the last few years before I started search I had started to back away because I had begun to really, really disliked the performance feel to being on a worship team. I clearly remember one time telling someone that I'd much rather help lead the worship from the back of the church than up front. I never knew that's what was happening already in many liturgical churches (not just Orthodox).

As to the popularity of Orthodoxy. I don't know how true that is. I think it must be partly perception. Just like when you're thinking of buying a certain car - look there it is everywhere you look. Or, (as I remember it), when one is hoping to get pregnant and suddenly it seems like everyone is pregnant. I sure wish Orthodox was very popular... my kids and I would love it if more of our extended Protestant family would convert. Last time I checked no one was standing in line behind us though. Makes me sad, really.

To my fellow Protestants and Orthodox who are formerly Protestant (and even cradle Orthodox, for you've had to make this faith your own), what drew you to Orthodoxy?

I ask because it seems that Orthodoxy is gaining massive ground among Protestants and even in the secular world. For instance, 60 Minutes had a very positive interview with His All Holiness, Bartholomew (or as he told the reporter, "Just Bartholomew"). They then did an exceptional piece about Mt. Athos, portraying the Orthodox in an extremely positive light.

In my own subjective experiences, I've found that Orthodoxy appeals to the more liberal or "postmodern" Protestants because it's not tied to any of their childhood memories of church (which tend to be negative). I've seen a few actually become theologically conservative after converting to Orthodoxy, whereas before they had gone so far as to question the Deity of Christ.

In my own life, I had four friends become seriously interested in Orthodoxy. These typical Texas Southern Baptist boys actually preferred the Eastern Rite Antiochean services to the Western Rite. So something appealed to them.

For myself, I am still a Protestant in name, but feel my heart (and head) drawn towards Orthodoxy. I find my theology consistently changing and becoming more and more Orthodox.

What is so interesting is that 5 years ago, if someone asked me about the Orthodox Church, I'd have no idea what to say. I knew nothing of it.

My whole point is what is it about Orthodoxy that has drawn people to it, specifically to the Protestants and Protestant converts on this board?

Man, I thought this thread was going to be like The Rise of the Silver Surfer. No, I kid: I thought The Rise of the Silver Surfer was good but not great. Also, I'm a tad surprised that60 Minutes had a positive take on the monks of Mt. Athos.

I grew up in a non-denominational Protestant church. It was rooted in the Baptist tradition, and most members were formerly members of Baptist churches, as (I believe) was the Pastor. However, it was much more Evangelical. I started becoming very, very involved in my faith around the fourth/fifth grades. Around the age of 10, I switched to the church my cousins attended, which was much the same as my previous one, but more conservative (not that my previous church wasn't conservative, the second one was just very conservative). Then in late sixth/early seventh grade, my family started going to a very large, very Evangelical Protestant church (it was a mega-church with something like 5,000 people + on a normal Sunday, at a total of like 6 services). For a while, I was very interested in it. However, after a time, I started reading outside of normal, moderately-well known (to Evangelicals) authors - sites and books I later would realize had been Messianic Jewish - which helped move me along to a number of heresies. Most notorious of them was Sabellianism. Not too long after that happened, I ceased believing in Christ. I looked into countless religions. Some of them very seriously, some of them not-so-seriously. From Judaism, to Islam, to Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. I checked out nearly everything (except the Baha'i and Hindus). Finally I, for a variety of reasons, came to the firm conclusion that Christianity was true. However, I was of the belief that Christ did not lie when he said that Hell will NOT prevail against His Church. As a consequence of that belief, I could not be a Protestant, because there was no group of Christians that believed as any Protestant does, that stretched back to the time of Christ. That would meant that, at some point, the gates of Hell had prevailed against the Body of Christ. As such, I knew I had to look into Churches claiming lineage to the Apostles. Those I knew at the time were the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics. I quickly ruled out the Anglicans, because they had changed a number of fundamental teachings in the 20th century alone. This left me with the Roman Catholics. I was reading a variety of books and websites and apologetic works. It did much to help me work past a variety of hangups I had on things like the Saints and whatnot. However, there were a lot of things I just couldn't understand and wasn't quite ready to accept, things that seemed to me to be introductions to the deposit of faith. Things like the role of Mary. Things like the Pope's infallibility. These were things I was very nearly ready to just say "Fine!" and throw up my hands and accept regardless of whether or not I thought they were originally taught, because I knew there had to be an authentic Church, because I really did believe in Christ and His promise. When I was at that point of nearly being able to just say, "Fine!" I was reading some topics on the CAF site, and read across something called "Orthodoxy". I'd never heard of it, or if I had, I had not payed attention. This was when I was 15 or so. From then until know, I slowly started to work up my knowledge and seriousness about studying Orthodoxy. I also started to go from not really knowing what it was, all the way up to believing without doubt that it is THE One, True, Church.

In short, it was the historicity of Orthodoxy. It was the fact that the Orthodox Church could truthfully say "We have not changed our beliefs and teachings in 2,000 years." That is what drew me to Orthodoxy. That is what has made me so fervent in my belief in it that I am ready and willing to say "Whether or not I understand why the Church teaches something, whether or not I previously believed that, once I find out that something is in fact the teaching of the Church, I am willing and able to suspend my belief and my intellect, and accept it on faith in Christ's Church."

I can sympathize with several in this disscussion, I am a former Sothern Baptist,and my current circumstances prevent me from finding a parish to attend,traveling etc. I do pray that the Lord will change my circustances,I do desire greatly to find one. I can say in my case it was the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that finally turned me away. I do believe that if most Protestants would actually think through some of the premises of SS,they would come to the same conclusion I did,CHAOS!! more presisly, ecclesiastical,and soteriological choas, just to name a few. Please pray for me.

I was attracted to it because:1. Offered a "blueprint" for how one can correctly engage with God. 2. Offers a connection to a historical church; it is THE true Church.3. It is more centered on a continuous Christian lifestyle rather than a one time conversion event. 4. Resists the sway of modern pop culture.

Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

Completely the case, though perhaps we now know what God's underlying plan was the whole time with these people

Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

I ask because it seems that Orthodoxy is gaining massive ground among Protestants and even in the secular world.

I think this is seriously overstated on the Internet.

Quote

In my own subjective experiences, I've found that Orthodoxy appeals to the more liberal or "postmodern" Protestants because it's not tied to any of their childhood memories of church (which tend to be negative).

The denomination I've been a part of for a while (Southern Baptist) is huge on church growth. What I've seen, however, is that much of the church growth has come from people who were already Christians. Now, part of this is due to the fact that somewhere around 80% of Americans claim the Christian faith, but the people who were moving to Southern Baptist churches were people who were active in other churches. In my own personal experience with the Orthodox Church, however, I'm seeing people who claimed no faith become converts, people who were nominally Christian become converts, and people who were active in a church become converts.

Would you say that whereas it seems the door for Protestants is quickly closing in this nation, that the Orthodox can still grab the attention of the "unchurched" and inactive Christians? That is to say, since there is so much hostility towards the Protestant church (as well as confusion within the Protestant church), could it be that the Orthodox can still reach out to these people and not face the same hostility?

The majority of converts I know came from Christian backgrounds and wandered their way through several ecclesial communities before settling into Orthodoxy. Southern Baptists (my childhood faith) make good converts, usually by way of a Presbyterian or Episcopal church. The non-Christian-to-Orthodox converts I know tend to be a lot more intellectually honest about Orthodoxy and tend to approach the faith with an attitude of more humility and openness to being wrong, whereas former Evangelicals tend to throw themselves into it wholeheartedly, buy a bunch of FMG books and stress over whether or not they are "doing it right."

Perhaps a more direct answer to your question is that I don't think the door closing on Protestantism means another door is opening for Orthodoxy. The door is closing on religion as a whole.

This does not mean we aren't to stick our foot in the door and try our hardest to convert our culture. I just don't think the prevailing cultural winds -- to mix metaphors -- are particularly favorable.

The thing that drove my to Orthodoxy is rather a simple one. For my whole life I have seen this commercialized Jesus. People trying to make Him cool, hip, more tolerant, less obtrusive, a buddy, a pal, a "good man", and a fishing pal.

I saw the church (note the lower case) twist the word to what they want it to be. They try to pigeonhole God. This modern church is one that I look at and see commercialization, watered-down theology, and a "gift-wrapped Jesus" that can be molded and shaped into whatever the recipient desires him to be. I wanted the REAL Christ. The one that makes no excuses, the one that will not accept someone taking bits and pieces of Him, or the one who will not allow manipulating His word to legitimize other's foolish behavior and beliefs. I wanted the Christ who IS. I wanted a Church that had the original beliefs of the origianal church. I wanted to feel confident that the lessons I learn are the SAME lessons taught to another inquirer 50, 100, or 2000 years ago.

I fought with my reservations about Protestantism for a very long time. I must all state I believe that most Protestants (outside of the jet-plane requesting & horse tooth mega-church variety) truly love the Lord and desire to serve Him with all their hearts.

That being said, there came a point in my life that I could not, in good conscience, continue to be a part of something that I did not believe. I wanted the original Church. I knew it was out there. Christ Himself said so. Luckily, because of my historical background, I had a general idea of where to begin.

It led me to the Orthodox Church. I believe with my whole heart it is the true Church of Christ. My decision could have very strong ramifications for me and I am willing to accept it in His service. The reason is because now I truly believe that what I am doing is right. This is the reason I am becoming Orthodox.

primuspilus

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Today in the gym there were two MDiv students from the Southern Baptist Seminary (you can always tell, they stick out). Anyway, they were discussing church growth strategies and things like that. Then they started getting into some stuff they had learned in class about Jesus, and one of them said something to the effect, "Well Jesus' spiritual side was Divine and His flesh was human." I thought maybe he misspoke, so I politely interrupted and asked him to explain what he meant. He did, and he meant that Jesus' soul was Divine and His flesh was human. So I said, "Well, that's not how it works." His quick retort was, "Oh, so you deny the Virgin Birth?"

Even after explaining to them what Christians of all types have believed for 2,000 years (the dual natures of Christ), he said that I was teaching a heresy.

Now, it's one thing if this is a church member. But this is a future pastor who doesn't even understand the Incarnation, getting an education from one of the most respected SBC seminaries in America. He can explain how to grow a church, but he can't tell you a bit of truth about the Incarnation.

When I look at Orthodoxy, I see hope. I see a group that hasn't given into the consumerism or even attempted to water down anything in its theology. I see a group that can bear the standard for the Truth, whereas many Protestants and Roman Catholics are falling along the wayside.

That is what I mean by the "rise of Orthodoxy." That, perhaps, Orthodoxy will preserve what little Christianity is left in America so future generations are not without hope.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Yeah Theo....its pretty shocking that most Christians here in America have no concept of basic Theological principles but they can lead churches with hundreds, if not thousands of members. Alot of the kids from Liberty U here locally are like that. Almost like they are using the church to start up their careers or something......*sigh*

primuspilus

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

theo please forgive me for my assertion but I fear that you see Orthodoxy as something of a mere intellectual assent or something that is contemplated. I am not sure if theology itself is the primary focus of within Orthodoxy but rather transforming onself to be more like Christ which makes us closer with God.

Please correct any of my observations, I just want you to clarify for me a bit.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

I am drawed to orthodoxy mainly beacause I believe it to be the original church. Also for me the danish church is dissapointing me more and more. After I came back to christianity after studying many different religions I started to notice that when I attended church there was very little that reminded me of actual worship. Most of the people attending was above the age of 60 (a problem which can be seen all over Denmark) and except for the pslams it was pretty much only the priest who was doing anything. I am not blaiming the priests. Many pastors including the our own are very good and kind people who do what they can for making the church attractive. The case is that the danish church is governed by the state who sadly to say have no real interest in preserving the dogmas or the teachings of the church. Today many of the teachings of the church are changed to fit the modern life of the danes. I eventually grew tired of it and in secret started searching to see if there was a church for me. After having gone through pretty much every christian denomination in the country and some who claimed to be christians (latter day saints), I stumbled on a video about the orthodox church made by the Chicago police department. I searched a bit and to my surprice I found out that orthodoxy was actually present in my country. In orthodoxy I have found a form of worship which is both ancient and alive. I have come to better understand the history of christianity and I have encountered a wisdom I never thought could exist. I have seen the beauty of the liturgy, I have been a part of the joy(and the pain)of Pascha and I have even witnessed the happiness of a person who was recieved into the church. I have gone through a lot in the last years. I have fought with issues and problems which my family and friends don't even know exists but I have also found a wonderful place with kind people and a sincere and deep form of worship I never knew about. I have a long way in front of me before I will even be able to partake in the holy eucharist but I know that now I have a place where I can seek advice whenever I am having trouble, and with the help of the church I might one day be able to have a deeper relationship with God.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

theo please forgive me for my assertion but I fear that you see Orthodoxy as something of a mere intellectual assent or something that is contemplated. I am not sure if theology itself is the primary focus of within Orthodoxy but rather transforming onself to be more like Christ which makes us closer with God.

Please correct any of my observations, I just want you to clarify for me a bit.

I see it as both and no difference between either. I see it as something that emphasizes correct thinking and therefore, by necessity, correct living (and vice versa). In so doing, that is why I see hope within the Orthodox movement.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

theo you have said earlier that you haven't been able to join the Church for various reasons. But don't you feel that the Eucharist is essential as part of the Christian way? And the sacraments of the Church?

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

When my journey down this road began, I was pretty content with where I was and not really searching for anything. I had gone down the road of a few heresies when I was an early teenager (I watched a lot of Arnold Murray on TV at that time).

It started with my Sunday School class (I was a freshman in high school at the time) doing a series on world religions. One segment was the Roman Catholic Church. I began researching that church so that I could have more info to help convert catholics (makes me both laugh and shudder thinking about that). Over the course of a couple years, my attitude toward them changed dramatically (I had no idea that the Orthodox Church existed at this point). It went from thinking they were pagans, to thinking they were christians but seriously confused, to thinking that they were solidly christian in their own right, to thinking that maybe they're on to something.

It was in this investigation that I discovered the early church: that they were liturgical, just as the apostles were; that they were heavily eucharistic and believed that it was Christ's body and blood; etc. But none of that really hit home with me (after all, anyone can be liturgical and believe in the transformation of the bread and wine without being Catholic). There was no sense of needing to connect historically to the early church for me yet.

But what got my attention was learning about the concept of apostolic succession. And if this were true - that the Apostles ordained leaders in the church, who in turn ordained leaders, etc, down through the ages to the current bishops - then that would mean that there is an "institution" around today that is THE continuation of the church that was started by Christ. And if those leaders were, ultimately, ordained through a succession going back to Christ Himself, then I HAD to be a part of that, whether or not I liked it or understood it.

For a long time I wanted to convert to the RCC, but was too afraid of my family's opinions... so I didn't. It wasn't until three years after I graduated high school that I started to give the RCC another look (this was the summer of 2004). I remembered why I wanted to convert in the first place, why I chose not to, and I decided that there's no reason why I shouldn't. So I talked to the local priest and began actively attending RCIA. I was in RCIA for about 9 months.

After several months of being in RCIA (I had been on some christian message boards for a couple years by that point), I began to learn the the Orthodox Church exists, and is more than just a smattering of Eastern European immigrants. I started asking some Orthodox folks some questions, reading some articles, etc. A couple things stuck out to me more so than others. If Peter started more churches than just the one at Rome, on what basis is the Roman Pope THE "successor of Peter"? The other one is that if the Creed was agreed upon by the whole Church, then on what basis can any one, single bishop change the Creed without the approval of the entire Church in council? For those reasons, and some others to a lesser degree, I began to think that the Orthodox might just be right about the schism.

I very hesitantly attended an Orthodox Liturgy for the first time in March of 2005 (I was a month or so from when I was schedule to be confirmed in the RCC). If knowing the history of the Orthodox Church left any doubt, that first Liturgy removed what was left of it. I never went to another Catholic Mass, and was chrismated into the Church in October of 2005.

But I don't think that my conversion to the Orthodox Church really began at that time. About a year later, due to various sins that I had gotten myself into, I felt that I had no choice but to leave the Church. Very soon after that time my spiritual life began to spiral downwards. I almost immediately began to have very intense demonic nightmares, and that lasted the entire time that I was away from the Church. I almost fell into complete atheism. I was very depressed almost the entire time, and my body, especially my stomach, suffered from it. And the whole time I was trying to convince myself that I had done the right thing, although I knew in my heart of hearts that Orthodoxy was where I needed to be.

Once circumstances changed, I emailed my old priest, who just so happened to be getting ready to make a trip out to where I was (about 1,000 miles from where his parish is to a diocese conference where I was). We met up, and he got me in touch with a priest in my area. This was just over 2 years ago, and I think that this is where my true conversion to the Orthodox Church began to start.

Until this point, my journey to the Orthodox Church was based on being institutionally correct, i.e., "these guys have preserved the correct doctrine, apostolic succession, and worship, so I need to be part of them." That's great and all. But what was I seeking? "Ancient worship"? "Consistent doctrine"? A "feeling of stability"? If I'm "institutionally correct", but nothing in my life is any different, then something is missing, no matter how "nice" the Liturgy feels. I talked to my priest about that (this was about a month after I came back to the Church), and he suggested something that no one had suggested to me before - read the lives of the Saints. He gave me one book to start off with, and I took it home and read it slowly over a few months.

THAT, I believe, is what truly struck a lasting nerve with me. These peoples' lives were completely and radically transformed, and it wasn't due to incense or their bishop's line of succession. And the things is, those people started off no better or worse than me. They found and took hold of something, and sacrificed everything in their lives until they could acquire it. My consideration of that fact sparked in my the thought that if they could do that, then, someday, it's possible for me to do that, too.

theo you have said earlier that you haven't been able to join the Church for various reasons. But don't you feel that the Eucharist is essential as part of the Christian way? And the sacraments of the Church?

I do. I never said I was consistent in my beliefs.

Perhaps one day I will have the courage to post why I have been drawn to Orthodoxy and what (currently) prevents me from converting.

« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 12:40:35 PM by theo philosopher »

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

In the end, I think the immersive quality of Orthodoxy wouldn't allow hipsters to remain "meta" enough; they'd actually be a legitimate, non-ironic PART of something.

No, hipsters, I think, loot Orthodoxy and other traditional faiths for interesting Christian novelties to form their own Frankenstein systems. I recently saw a blog where the emergent owner offered to come to your church and give a lecture on how to include elements of liturgy in your evangelical protestant service. It's like Eastern Roman Live Action Role Playing.

« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 03:28:00 AM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

In the end, I think the immersive quality of Orthodoxy wouldn't allow hipsters to remain "meta" enough; they'd actually be a legitimate, non-ironic PART of something.

No, hipsters, I think, loot Orthodoxy and other traditional faiths for interesting Christian novelties to form their own Frankenstein systems. I recently saw a blog where the emergent owner offered to come to your church and give a lecture on how to include elements of liturgy in your evangelical protestant service. It's like Eastern Roman Live Action Role Playing.

This made me laugh pretty hard.

I have a friend who's a "mover" in the emergent movement and he wanted to come visit the local church with me. So I took him and he loved the liturgy. Then we started talking about doctrine afterwards (with the Deacon) and he was shocked at how formal it was.

Now he wants to incorporate elements of the service into a "modern 21st century applicable way."

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Answering your OP, it was the faith expressed in the Divine Liturgy that made me realize that this was the worship of which the origins were given to Moses and fulfilled by Jesus Christ. I attended my first DL cold & everything fell into place for me & I had only returned to faith in Christ for a year (after over 25 yrs gone) having attended fundamentalist & Pentecostal churches previous to the very Sunday I abruptly decided to attend the DL (although I had felt a pull for a couple weeks previous). I had been raised in a combined Methodist/Presbyterian church in youth but left it behind. Although the human condition is everywhere, of course, it is the simple faith expressed in our creed, the Lord's instructions to us to pray, fast, & give alms, live your faith unto death, confess, partake of the Eucharist etc. that are fulfilled when we gather to worship and partake of the host that is found nowhere else in proper form outside of Orthodoxy. I am not meaning to be deeply critical of other Christian communities, it just seems that the faith is incomplete (to varying degrees) outside the church.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither castye your pearls before swine, lest they trample themunder their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Matthew 7:6

Too late, last week they started printing Bibles on this new-fangled thing called a "printing press". I've heard that some Orthodox are even so audacious as to speak of the sacraments in front of non-Orthodox. Shameful!

I have a friend who's a "mover" in the emergent movement and he wanted to come visit the local church with me. So I took him and he loved the liturgy. Then we started talking about doctrine afterwards (with the Deacon) and he was shocked at how formal it was.

Now he wants to incorporate elements of the service into a "modern 21st century applicable way."

Is he part of the emergent "house church" movement, as well?

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither castye your pearls before swine, lest they trample themunder their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Matthew 7:6

Too late, last week they started printing Bibles on this new-fangled thing called a "printing press". I've heard that some Orthodox are even so audacious as to speak of the sacraments in front of non-Orthodox. Shameful!

You mean someone actually took to heart some part of Scripture? Gasp!

Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

Today in the gym there were two MDiv students from the Southern Baptist Seminary (you can always tell, they stick out). Anyway, they were discussing church growth strategies and things like that. Then they started getting into some stuff they had learned in class about Jesus, and one of them said something to the effect, "Well Jesus' spiritual side was Divine and His flesh was human." I thought maybe he misspoke, so I politely interrupted and asked him to explain what he meant. He did, and he meant that Jesus' soul was Divine and His flesh was human. So I said, "Well, that's not how it works." His quick retort was, "Oh, so you deny the Virgin Birth?"

Even after explaining to them what Christians of all types have believed for 2,000 years (the dual natures of Christ), he said that I was teaching a heresy.

Now, it's one thing if this is a church member. But this is a future pastor who doesn't even understand the Incarnation, getting an education from one of the most respected SBC seminaries in America. He can explain how to grow a church, but he can't tell you a bit of truth about the Incarnation.

I'm just curious about what the error here was in a technical sense. So he was saying that Jesus has a divine soul which is uncreated, and a human body which is created? I'm guessing that the problem is that his soul is a part of his created human nature, and to separate them is wrong. It also wouldn't be proper to refer to Jesus being a sort of composite of "parts" with different "sides", I suppose.

So was it basically that he was just totally unfamiliar with the whole language of two natures in one person, and that's what bothered you? I'm just curious because I still haven't spent too much time getting into incarnational heresies. I know there are also some definitions about Christ's human and divine "wills", but I honestly have no idea what that is all about.

Today in the gym there were two MDiv students from the Southern Baptist Seminary (you can always tell, they stick out). Anyway, they were discussing church growth strategies and things like that. Then they started getting into some stuff they had learned in class about Jesus, and one of them said something to the effect, "Well Jesus' spiritual side was Divine and His flesh was human." I thought maybe he misspoke, so I politely interrupted and asked him to explain what he meant. He did, and he meant that Jesus' soul was Divine and His flesh was human. So I said, "Well, that's not how it works." His quick retort was, "Oh, so you deny the Virgin Birth?"

Even after explaining to them what Christians of all types have believed for 2,000 years (the dual natures of Christ), he said that I was teaching a heresy.

Now, it's one thing if this is a church member. But this is a future pastor who doesn't even understand the Incarnation, getting an education from one of the most respected SBC seminaries in America. He can explain how to grow a church, but he can't tell you a bit of truth about the Incarnation.

I'm just curious about what the error here was in a technical sense. So he was saying that Jesus has a divine soul which is uncreated, and a human body which is created? I'm guessing that the problem is that his soul is a part of his created human nature, and to separate them is wrong. It also wouldn't be proper to refer to Jesus being a sort of composite of "parts" with different "sides", I suppose.

So was it basically that he was just totally unfamiliar with the whole language of two natures in one person, and that's what bothered you? I'm just curious because I still haven't spent too much time getting into incarnational heresies. I know there are also some definitions about Christ's human and divine "wills", but I honestly have no idea what that is all about.

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither castye your pearls before swine, lest they trample themunder their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Matthew 7:6

Too late, last week they started printing Bibles on this new-fangled thing called a "printing press". I've heard that some Orthodox are even so audacious as to speak of the sacraments in front of non-Orthodox. Shameful!

Is outrage!

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I've always been drawn to Eastern Orthodox Christianity mostly due to its history, that it is the Church of the Apostles and the Church in which Christian doctrine was formalized. I can't comprehend how someone or a group of people could come up with a valid church at any time after the Church of the Apostles was developed as an Earthly institution. Likewise, despite asserted justifications about canons that allow for separation and other reasons for divisions, I have difficulty respecting the authenticity of churches which broke with this Church of the Apostles. Say what you may about any failings a detractor may identify in the contemporary Orthodox Church, it is the Church established by Jesus Christ, its articles of faith are true and pure, and its leadership, its hierarchy, are successors to the Apostles.

Today in the gym there were two MDiv students from the Southern Baptist Seminary (you can always tell, they stick out). Anyway, they were discussing church growth strategies and things like that. Then they started getting into some stuff they had learned in class about Jesus, and one of them said something to the effect, "Well Jesus' spiritual side was Divine and His flesh was human." I thought maybe he misspoke, so I politely interrupted and asked him to explain what he meant. He did, and he meant that Jesus' soul was Divine and His flesh was human. So I said, "Well, that's not how it works." His quick retort was, "Oh, so you deny the Virgin Birth?"

Even after explaining to them what Christians of all types have believed for 2,000 years (the dual natures of Christ), he said that I was teaching a heresy.

Now, it's one thing if this is a church member. But this is a future pastor who doesn't even understand the Incarnation, getting an education from one of the most respected SBC seminaries in America. He can explain how to grow a church, but he can't tell you a bit of truth about the Incarnation.

I'm just curious about what the error here was in a technical sense. So he was saying that Jesus has a divine soul which is uncreated, and a human body which is created? I'm guessing that the problem is that his soul is a part of his created human nature, and to separate them is wrong. It also wouldn't be proper to refer to Jesus being a sort of composite of "parts" with different "sides", I suppose.

So was it basically that he was just totally unfamiliar with the whole language of two natures in one person, and that's what bothered you? I'm just curious because I still haven't spent too much time getting into incarnational heresies. I know there are also some definitions about Christ's human and divine "wills", but I honestly have no idea what that is all about.

Very fair and important questions to ask.

As humans we are composed of body and soul. If we lack a body, then we are dead and with the Lord. If we lack a soul, then our bodies are dead. Thus, to lack either is to be dead, not alive. To be a living human one must have a body and soul.

Thus, if we say that Christ lacked a human soul, then He was only partially human. Our souls, our will, everything that can lead us to sin is not redeemed because it was not assumed in the Incarnation. That is the most pressing matter. The second pressing matter is the number of problems it leads to, since we would have to ask how if Christ only had one will (the Divine will) He could possibly ask the Father, "Not my will, but thine." Further, how could He act like a man and will like a man unless He had two wills, one human and one Divine (with the two working in unison)?

The problem I had with this fellow isn't necessarily that he didn't know this stuff - after all, many people in the laity could be confused or even new Christians. What bothers me is that within a few years, he'll be the pastor of a church. He's getting an MDiv degree, yet he doesn't know about the Incarnation, or at least not enough to avoid heresies. To me, that's extremely problematic. It's a problem that I don't really see in Eastern Orthodox parishes because such things are generally taught within the liturgy, and anyone who doesn't pick it up from the liturgy will certainly get it when they get to a seminary. The same cannot be said for at least Southern Baptists, who offer classes on the Trinity as an elective.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

I have a friend who's a "mover" in the emergent movement and he wanted to come visit the local church with me. So I took him and he loved the liturgy. Then we started talking about doctrine afterwards (with the Deacon) and he was shocked at how formal it was.

Now he wants to incorporate elements of the service into a "modern 21st century applicable way."

Is he part of the emergent "house church" movement, as well?

Well, not the "house church" movement necessarily. Just mostly the emergent movement and the more heretical part of the movement (the part that denies the deity of Jesus, or at least flirts with it, while he also considers pantheism).

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

People seem to be saying that they are drawn to Orthodoxy for two main reasons: its claim to historical continuity (thus being the only true church); and its æsthetic attractions. Their third reason seems to be the opposite, not why Orthodoxy drew them, but why Evangelicalism repulsed them: which is not in the least surprising in view of its weird mutations you often refer to (which can be observed here in Britain too, though perhaps to a lesser extent as yet).

What I don't seem to have read in the above posts - unless I missed it, for some are very long - is the way Orthodoxy allows more mystery concerning God and religion, whereas Evangelicalism seems to claim to have all the 'cut-and-dried' answers; though I suppose this could be included in the third reason in my first paragraph. The place and presence of mystery - is the correct word the apophatic approach to God? - is attractive, after one has moved for decades among brash, self-assured Christians who know all the answers.

(Not, of course, that one can't give space for mystery and still remain a Baptist! )

« Last Edit: July 26, 2011, 12:26:33 PM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15